On Thursday 24 October 2002 14:47, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > > /.?
> >
> > You know those hidden files that are present in the root directory. Oh,
> > you don't have it? Maybe he is sepaking of Chips and Dips, who knows. ;-)
>
> http://slashdot.org
Unless this is a high level joke you didn't got
> > /.?
>
> You know those hidden files that are present in the root directory. Oh,
> you don't have it? Maybe he is sepaking of Chips and Dips, who knows. ;-)
http://slashdot.org
On Thursday 24 October 2002 02:58, Garst R. Reese wrote:
>
> It's OK John, I _was_ president of my college debating club :)
> But that does not mean that I am against Qt dev. My car license plate
> happens to be QT 519, which says only that P.E.I. is small.
Completly out of topic, but this weeke
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 07:29:18PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
>> On Wednesday 23 October 2002 17:56, Garst R. Reese wrote: > For me
>> qt is just another bloated lib to install on an already crowded >
>> disk.
>>
>> you must have been t
On Thursday 24 October 2002 2:06 am, Rob Lahaye wrote:
> Angus,
>
> A small patch to src/frontends/xforms/FormDocument.C:
>
> (1)"#include FORMS_H_LOCATION" is there twice,
>
> (2) The following header includes appear to be superfluous:
>
> #include "bufferparams.h"
> #include "vspace.h
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:15:43PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Layouts don't nest properly.
> | No way to have a sequence of multipar "proofs" with a single layout.
>
> User definable layouts does not fix this...
That's why I was talking about user "defined environment", implementable b
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:23:49PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
>
> > up. Sure this doesn't get the Qt Document code written but it still
> > benefits Qt because once the controller is known to work your Qt
>
> Edwin has already written the Qt doc dialog, and t
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 01:23:49PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> up. Sure this doesn't get the Qt Document code written but it still
> benefits Qt because once the controller is known to work your Qt
Edwin has already written the Qt doc dialog, and the controller for it.
> coding skills can complet
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> It just makes me sad to see scarce resources (developer time) being directed
> towards the xforms frontend which in turn delays qt with in turn delays inset
> unification which in turn etc etc
We have three frontends. I'm sure there are a few people (mo
Angus,
A small patch to src/frontends/xforms/FormDocument.C:
(1)"#include FORMS_H_LOCATION" is there twice,
(2) The following header includes appear to be superfluous:
#include "bufferparams.h"
#include "vspace.h"
#include "lyxfunc.h"
#include "bufferview_funcs.h
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:25:54PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> It just makes me sad to see scarce resources (developer time) being directed
> towards the xforms frontend which in turn delays qt with in turn delays inset
> unification which in turn etc etc
Well me too, I suppose, but we can't f
> What's with the attitude Edwin ?
my apologies to Garst, but after reading his email I thought I was on /.
instead off lyx-devel. Forgot myself so to say
> Some people will prefer to still use xforms.
precisely my point
> So what ?
Yes, I don't care either
> You don't have to
> use
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 07:14:55PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
| > > Things like "native support" for \newenvironment{} ?
| >
| > Isn't that done via .layout files ???
|
| Layouts don't nest properly.
|
| No way to have a sequence of multipar "proofs" wi
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 08:40:17PM +0200, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
> No way to have a sequence of multipar "proofs" with a single layout.
Which btw leads to a more compact work around than that I was previously
aware of: One could create two otherwide identical layouts called 'proof1'
and 'proof2' an
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 07:14:55PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > Things like "native support" for \newenvironment{} ?
>
> Isn't that done via .layout files ???
Layouts don't nest properly.
No way to have a sequence of multipar "proofs" with a single layout.
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give u
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 07:31:02PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > Smaller?
>
> I said "seriously"
I am serious.
I would't install the whole lot of Qt helper libs just to run LyX.
> but I doubt most people will. 90 percent of the user's will have some version
> of qt installed.
I care about 90
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 07:29:18PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 October 2002 17:56, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> > For me qt is just another bloated lib to install on an already crowded
> > disk.
>
> you must have been the president of your university's debating club.
I thought the pur
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 07:29:18PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 October 2002 17:56, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> > For me qt is just another bloated lib to install on an already crowded
> > disk.
>
> you must have been the president of your university's debating club.
What's with the
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 08:12:34PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Things like "native support" for \newenvironment{} ?
Isn't that done via .layout files ???
john
--
"This is playing, not work, therefore it's not a waste of time."
- Zath
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 05:34:23PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > You need a new feature?
>
> It seems a bit pointless releasing otherwise.
I have no problems with "no release".
Apart from that there are a few new fearures.
We can read old .lyx files now for starters.
> > What about user defined
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 17:17, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > But seriously, what's the point of
> > the xforms frontend once we have a qt frontend?
>
> Smaller?
I said "seriously"
> I think I will.
but I doubt most people will. 90 percent of the user's will have some version
of qt installed. an
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 17:56, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> For me qt is just another bloated lib to install on an already crowded
> disk.
you must have been the president of your university's debating club.
Ed,
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 01:26, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> Edwin Leuven wrote:
>
> > Best way to do this is with rm -rf. But seriously, what's the point of the
> > xforms frontend once we have a qt frontend?
> For me qt is just another bloated lib to install on an already crowded
> disk.
> Garst
>
Ye
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 00:54, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 05:01:45PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > Since there was this political decision of including the Qt frontend in
> > 1.3.0 if I may remind you.
>
> So what would a 1.3.0 without Qt's release notes look like ?
>
> o Fixe
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 06:30:59PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > What are the new features that warrant a release, if not Qt ?
>
> You need a new feature?
It seems a bit pointless releasing otherwise.
> What about user defined environments?
>
> Two days work and not a four month stall.
What
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 04:24:49PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> So what would a 1.3.0 without Qt's release notes look like ?
>
> o Fixed some minor stuff
> o spellchecking of multi-language docs
>
> What are the new features that warrant a release, if not Qt ?
You need a new feature?
What about u
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 03:49:15PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > > been a good place to start. I think that the current state
> > > of the code reflects my learning curve pretty well.
> >
> > Sure, but this is an ongoing process ...
>
> tht's the nature of learning curves.
I mean the cleanup w
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 05:01:45PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Since there was this political decision of including the Qt frontend in
> 1.3.0 if I may remind you.
So what would a 1.3.0 without Qt's release notes look like ?
o Fixed some minor stuff
o spellchecking of multi-language docs
What
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 04:14:09PM +, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Best way to do this is with rm -rf. But seriously, what's the point of the
> xforms frontend once we have a qt frontend?
Smaller?
> Of course you do whatever you feel like doing. That's the game. It's
> just that all this effort on
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:57:59PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > For the here and now, I'll happily attempt controller/view splits
> > of the remaining dialogs, but you'll have noticed that there is a
> > considerable effort involved.
>
> But *this* work is blocking the release of 1.3.0.
Since t
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 2:57 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:00:28PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > I'm really not that interested in GUIs. I am interested in
> > learning how to write good code and the frontend stuff has
> > been a good place to start. I think that the cur
Dear Angus,
> You'll have noticed that I haven't got involved with the Qt stuff at all.
> There's a reason for that and I'll let you into the secret:
> Elegant, understandable code is what I'm interested in.
Of course we all have our own reasons. I am interested in an elegant,
understandable and
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:00:28PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I'm really not that interested in GUIs. I am interested in learning
> how to write good code and the frontend stuff has been a good
> place to start. I think that the current state of the code reflects my
> learning curve pretty w
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 3:15 pm, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> On Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:57, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > Thereafter, I /may/ gird up my loins and convert it to
> > Edwin's Control/View split...
>
> why not spend your time on the qt dialog? time better spend if
> you ask me.
Hello, Ed!
You'
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wednesday 23 October 2002 12:50 pm, Rob Lahaye wrote:
>> One small thing to remove:
>>
>>
>> @@ -386,6 +414,9 @@ void FormDocument::update()
>> language_update(params);
>> options_update(params);
>> bullets_update(params)
On Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:57, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Thereafter, I /may/ gird up my loins and convert it to Edwin's
> Control/View split...
why not spend your time on the qt dialog? time better spend if you ask me.
Ed.
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 12:50 pm, Rob Lahaye wrote:
> One small thing to remove:
>
>
> @@ -386,6 +414,9 @@ void FormDocument::update()
> language_update(params);
> options_update(params);
> bullets_update(params);
> +
> +// reset widgets to valid input
> +
Angus Leeming wrote:
Check out the use of the checkedGlueLengths here!
Ooo! You're left in no doubt that you've entered
something dumn. Rob, I've made it a little less in-your-face by
setting only LCOL1 to red. That way, the user won't get irritated too
much as he tries to enter the val
Check out the use of the checkedGlueLengths here!
Ooo! You're left in no doubt that you've entered
something dumn. Rob, I've made it a little less in-your-face by
setting only LCOL1 to red. That way, the user won't get irritated too
much as he tries to enter the value, but if he clicks e
39 matches
Mail list logo
